Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jul 29, 2009 8:04am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Question

When that many obviously copyright films come into a collection of Public Domain films something is obviously wrong. Its better to fix the problem early rather than having the studio copyright lawyers fix it.

I don't know if you're joking re the Mongolia thing, but FYI:
Similar to US GATT/URAA terms, Mongolian copyright terms only apply to foreign works that were first published in Mongolia:
"Article 5.1.2) foreign citizens whose work has been first made available to the public in Mongolia. A work of a foreign citizen shall be treated as having been first made available to the public in Mongolia if it was made available to the public within 30 days from the date when it was first made available to the public in any other country;"
Mongolian law states that the terms of any international agreements that they are subject to apply in favour of their copyright terms. This effectively rules out a "rule of the shorter term":
"Article 2.2. If an international treaty to which Mongolia is a party is inconsistent with this law, then the provisions of the international treaty shall prevail."
It appears as though the copyright term in Mongolia for a work of joint authorship is 75 years from January 1 of the year following creation of the work. This is inconsistant with US law. The existance of US and Mongolia's bilateral trade agreement which includes copyright reciprocity (Article IX) would suggest that Mongolia should offer copyright protection to US origin films for their full US term.

The law in operation on The Internet Archive is US law. For a film to be appropriate for posting on the Internet Archive it needs to be Public Domain in the USA.
For a film of US origin to be PD, it needs to fit into the following categories:
- Made and published before the beginning of 1923:
- Made and published between 1923 and the end of 1963, not registered or timely renewed and contains no underlying copyright material(s).
- Made and published between 1923 and 1978 containing no copyright notice or an invalid notice and no underlying copyright material(s).
- Made between and published between 1978 and 1 March 1989 containing no notice or an invalid notice and no attempt to correct ommision (correct notice added to later copies, registration) within 5 years of first publication and no underlying copyright material(s).
Anything that does not fit in one of the above categories has the benefit of 95 years of copyright protection from the end of the year of first publication.
US law does not contain a specific "rule of the shorter term" for foreign works it protects (ie foreign works that were not PD in their source country, or otherwise ineligible for GATT/URAA restoration) So, protected foreign works will remain in copyright in the US for the full term regardless to their status in their source country.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-07-29 15:04:30

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Fact_Checker Date: Jul 30, 2009 4:50am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Question (Basics of U.S. GATT copyright law)

Video-Cellar wrote: "US law does not contain a specific 'rule of the shorter term' for foreign works it protects (ie foreign works that were not PD in their source country, or otherwise ineligible for GATT/URAA restoration) So, protected foreign works will remain in copyright in the US for the full term regardless to their status in their source country."

The above is true. This brief summary so quickly passes over the mentions of "foreign works that were not PD in their source country, or otherwise ineligible for GATT/URAA restoration" before going on to mention "protected foreign works will remain in copyright in the US for the full term regardless to their status in their source country" that I am writing this message to flesh out the subject.

Concerning "foreign works that were not PD in their source country", this brings up works that WERE p.d. in their source countries. Just what categories fit here is not a simple matter of surmising what the U.S. law would have given these works -- because foreign countries differ from the U.S. and each other in what those durations are.

The basic fact to consider is:

Section 104A(h)(6) starts out by saying "The term 'restored work' means an original work of authorship that--
...
(B) is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection;"

If the copyright in the work's foreign country had expired already when the 1994 GATT legislation went into effect, the work was not entitled to what the U.S. legislation would otherwise give it. Sure, the U.S. legislation says elsewhere that the term is the full term it would have been given had the copyright owner fulfilled the requirements way back when, but in 104A(h)(6)(B) there's this note about expirations that had already occurred prior to eligibility.

There are some foreign works categories which receive terms so much shorter than their U.S. equivalents that works just a few decades old were already in the public domain in the source countries and thus not eligible under 104A(h)(6)(B) when 104(h)(6)(B) came into being:

Photographs in Italy get 20 years. Photographs in Spain get 25 years. There's one European country -- I don't see it in my notes just now -- where news photos get 25 years but other types get the standard durations of literary works.

Several countries grant just 15 years to databases (including France, Germany, Spain).

There are a number of categories where duration is 50 years: Canadian corporate-made photographs and movies; British sound recordings (warning: underlying works); U.K., Hong Kong and Australia government-made works.

You can take a look at the stats at http://chart.copyrightdata.com/ch08A.php

Citations appear therein in italics in parentheses immediately after the durations.

There's also an explanation, with examples, of the myriad surprises that turn up on account of 104A(h)(6)(B) in a table (with accompanying text) at http://chart.copyrightdata.com/ch08.html under the header "It Wasn't Every Foreign Copyright That Became Respected by the United States". (Am I mis-remembering, or did I link this very same table and header just within the last few days?)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jul 30, 2009 5:48am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Question (Basics of U.S. GATT copyright law)

I had a brief look at some of the information on the pages you linked. I noticed that there are some categories of works of Australian origin that weren't covered in the section on GATT/URAA ineligibility.
Prior to 2005 all current 70 year terms in Australia were 50 year terms. The copyright term extension did not reinstate expired copyrights and all 50 year terms that had expired at the end of 2004 and before remain expired.
Australian dramatic films, dramatic works and literary works were the author had died 1945 or earlier, anonymous works, photographs and still frames from movies, documentary films, news films and sound recordings made and released 1945 and earlier were public domain in Australia at 1 January 1996. Broadcasts made prior to 1 January 1969 are not protected under Austrlian copyright law. This information may expand the number of Australian works that were ineligible for GATT/URAA restoration due to copyright expiry in their source country.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Ganbachi Date: Jul 30, 2009 7:27am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Question (Basics of U.S. GATT copyright law)

"Broadcasts made prior to 1 January 1969 are not protected under Austrlian copyright law."???

Does that mean we could have "The Interpretaris", "Vega 4" and "The Stranger" - all of which were made for TV and broadcast before 1969 - over in classic tv? (I love Aussie TV, we had so much of it imported to the UK over the years).

Sorry for my ignorant queries, I'm trying to get my brain round copyright laws but when I think I've got it I find out I'm all wrong.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jul 30, 2009 8:18am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Question (Basics of U.S. GATT copyright law)

Broadcast copyright in Australia refers to the encoded Broadcast signal. The underlying works contained in the broadcast (moving images, dramatic scripts, music) are protected by seperate copyrights. News and factual programs are protected for at least 50 years and most dramatic programs are copyright for at least 70 years from the date of first airing. So old doco shows like "A Year To Remember", news shows, some variety shows and Cinesound/Movietone Specials are steadily entering the public domain while the great drama, mystery and kids shows etc will take a litle longer.
It is similar to a copyright in a book edition. The edition copyright covers the typeface and page arrangement but the underlying written work may be subject to its own literary copyright. Its kind of like copyright on the box being seperate to the copyright on whats in the box.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-07-30 15:18:18

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Ganbachi Date: Jul 31, 2009 1:17pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Question (Basics of U.S. GATT copyright law)

OK. Video-cellar, I got one more question, it's a long shot but:

My wife bought me some cheap dvd's of 2 recent-ish US TV shows. Out of curiosity I looked them up and found no copyright registration. On the episode end credits one of them says "All rights reserved, 1996" and the other says "Copyright 1996" but neither of them have the copyright sign.

This wouldn't make them PD would it?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Fact_Checker Date: Aug 4, 2009 6:11am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Question (1996 TV show without copyright notice)

Copyright notices had recently become optional in 1996. The notice that you described would not put it into the public domain. However, had the show been made and "published" decades earlier, that would be a different story.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Fact_Checker Date: Aug 4, 2009 6:36am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Question (1996 TV show without copyright notice)

If Ganbachi or anyone else would like to check out the law that changed the copyright notice requirements, go to http://law.copyrightdata.com/amendments.php, and select:

"Public Law 100-568 (October 31, 1988)"

Use the button to bring up the full text. The relevant part is section 7.

If you want an easy declaration from the Copyright Office, check out Circular 3: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Ganbachi Date: Aug 4, 2009 7:10am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Question (1996 TV show without copyright notice)

Thank you, Fact-Checker. Your input in these forums has been invaluable (to me, at least).